Grants Pass v. Johnson — Eighth Amendment and Laws Regulating Homelessness

City of Grants Pass v. Johnson, 603 U.S. 200 (2024), is a landmark Supreme Court decision holding that the Eighth Amendment's Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause does not bar cities from enforcing generally applicable anti-camping ordinances against people experiencing homelessness, even when those individuals have nowhere else to go. Justice Gorsuch, writing for a 6-3 majority, rejected the Ninth Circuit's ruling that the Eighth Amendment prohibited enforcement of camping prohibitions against involuntarily homeless individuals as "cruel and unusual punishment" for the status of being homeless. The decision resolved a circuit split on one of the most consequential questions in homelessness law and local government authority: may cities enforce public camping bans when shelter capacity is insufficient? The Court's answer was yes — the Eighth Amendment prohibits punishment for status (being addicted, being homeless), but cities retain authority to regulate conduct (sleeping or camping in public) as long as those laws are generally applicable, serve legitimate public purposes, and do not criminalize status as such. Grants Pass significantly expanded cities' legal tools to address homeless encampments, removing the constitutional barrier the Ninth Circuit had created for West Coast jurisdictions while leaving unresolved important questions about conditions in jails and the limits of enforcement when shelter is truly unavailable.

Current Law (2026)

Legal Authority

• U.S. Const. amend. VIII — "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted"
• 42 U.S.C. § 1983 — The vehicle for constitutional claims against local governments; plaintiffs sued Grants Pass under § 1983 for Eighth Amendment violations
• 42 U.S.C. § 11301 — McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act; declares it federal policy to "move toward ending chronic homelessness" and prioritizes shelter access; does not create private rights of action limiting local enforcement authority
• Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962) — California law making it a crime to "be addicted to the use of narcotics" violated the Eighth Amendment; the status of addiction is not punishable conduct; established the "status crimes" doctrine limiting the Eighth Amendment's scope
• Powell v. Texas, 392 U.S. 514 (1968) — Upheld Texas law criminalizing public intoxication as applied to a chronic alcoholic; plurality held that punishing the public act of intoxication is not the same as punishing the status of being an alcoholic; drew the conduct/status line that Grants Pass applies to homelessness
• Martin v. City of Boise, 920 F.3d 584 (9th Cir. 2019) — Ninth Circuit held that enforcing anti-camping ordinances against homeless individuals who lack access to adequate shelter violates the Eighth Amendment; the circuit precedent that Grants Pass effectively limited or overruled for the Supreme Court's purposes
• Pottinger v. City of Miami, 810 F. Supp. 1551 (S.D. Fla. 1992) — District court ruling that Miami's sweeps of homeless individuals from public spaces violated the Eighth Amendment; an early lower-court application of the status-crime doctrine to homelessness that Grants Pass rejected at the Supreme Court level
• City of Grants Pass v. Johnson, 603 U.S. 200 (2024) — Holding: anti-camping laws are valid regulations of conduct; the Eighth Amendment bars criminalization of status (being homeless) but not conduct (camping in public); cities may enforce camping bans even when some individuals lack shelter access

Key Mechanics

City of Grants Pass v. Johnson (2024) resolved a circuit conflict about whether the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on "cruel and unusual punishments" limits cities' authority to enforce anti-camping and anti-sleeping ordinances against homeless individuals. Grants Pass, Oregon enacted ordinances prohibiting camping or sleeping with bedding materials in public spaces, carrying civil fines (up to $295) escalating to criminal trespass charges for repeat violations. A class of homeless plaintiffs challenged these ordinances as cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment, relying on the Ninth Circuit's Martin v. City of Boise holding that cities cannot punish homeless individuals for sleeping in public when no adequate shelter is available. The Supreme Court reversed 6-3 in an opinion by Justice Gorsuch. The majority distinguished Robinson v. California (which banned punishing the status of addiction) from regulations of conduct: camping and sleeping in public are conduct, not status. The Eighth Amendment's prohibition on status crimes does not restrict the government's ability to regulate conduct — even if that conduct is necessitated by the person's circumstances. The Court also raised institutional competence concerns, noting that federal courts are not equipped to administer shelter-capacity determinations across every locality. Justice Sotomayor's dissent argued that punishing conduct that is inseparable from the involuntary status of homelessness effectively punishes the status itself. The decision removed the principal constitutional barrier to local anti-camping enforcement in jurisdictions with significant unsheltered homeless populations.

How It Works

Background: Grants Pass and Its Camping Ordinances

Grants Pass, Oregon (population approximately 40,000) enacted ordinances prohibiting camping in public spaces — sleeping outdoors with a blanket, bedroll, or other sleeping materials. The ordinances applied citywide and carried escalating fines. The city enforced them as part of a strategy to reduce encampments in parks and public spaces.

A class of homeless residents sued, arguing that because Grants Pass's homeless shelter (operated by a church) had religious requirements for admission and insufficient capacity to house all homeless individuals in the city, enforcing the anti-camping ordinances against involuntarily homeless people constituted cruel and unusual punishment. The Ninth Circuit agreed, relying on Martin v. City of Boise's rule that the Eighth Amendment bars enforcement of anti-camping ordinances when adequate shelter is unavailable.

The case went to the Supreme Court as the leading vehicle to address a circuit split: the Ninth Circuit's Martin rule (Eighth Amendment limits camping enforcement) versus other circuits that permitted cities to enforce similar ordinances without shelter-capacity requirements.

The Eighth Amendment Status-Crime Doctrine: Robinson and Powell

The Eighth Amendment's history in homelessness law traces to Robinson v. California (1962), where the Court struck down a California law making it a crime to "be addicted to narcotics." Justice Stewart's majority held that punishing a person for the status of addiction — rather than for specific acts of using or possessing drugs — was akin to making it a crime to have a disease. Six years later, Powell v. Texas (1968) drew the key limiting line: Texas could punish the public act of intoxication even when the defendant was a chronic alcoholic who claimed he was compelled to drink by his addiction. The plurality drew the status/conduct distinction: addiction is a status; appearing drunk in public is conduct.

For decades, advocates argued that homelessness is functionally a status — an involuntary condition — and that punishing homeless individuals for the inherent consequences of being homeless (sleeping outside) is analogous to punishing addiction status under Robinson. The Ninth Circuit embraced this reasoning in Martin: because homeless individuals cannot choose not to be homeless, requiring them to sleep somewhere is punishing them for their status.

Grants Pass's Resolution: Conduct, Not Status

Justice Gorsuch's majority rejected this framework. The Eighth Amendment prohibits punishment for being homeless — if a city enacted a law making "homelessness" a crime, Robinson would apply. But anti-camping ordinances punish specific conduct — the act of sleeping outside with bedding materials in a public space — not the status of homelessness. The same ordinance applies to housed and homeless alike; a housed person camping overnight in a city park is equally subject to it.

The majority refused to constitutionalize a shelter-capacity requirement. Cities are not required to demonstrate that every person enforced against has available shelter before citing them. The logistics of determining shelter availability, the administrative complexity of exempting individuals from generally applicable laws based on personal circumstances, and the nature of the Eighth Amendment's limits on criminal punishment all weighed against the Martin rule.

The majority also emphasized the democratic and institutional competence points: homelessness policy is complex, contested, and appropriate for local democratic resolution. The question of how cities balance public health, safety, compassion, and order in addressing encampments is not one the Eighth Amendment resolves. Different cities may make different choices; that is the point of federalism in local government.

What Grants Pass Does Not Decide

The majority was explicit about what it left open:

• Conditions of punishment: The Eighth Amendment still prohibits cruel and unusual conditions of confinement. If someone is arrested and jailed for a camping violation, the conditions in jail must be constitutionally adequate. This is separate from the initial question of whether enforcement is permitted.
• Other constitutional claims: The decision addressed only the Eighth Amendment. Homeless individuals may still bring Fourth Amendment (unreasonable seizure of property), First Amendment (prohibition on gathering), Due Process, or Equal Protection claims depending on how enforcement is conducted. Sweeps that destroy property without notice may violate due process; targeted enforcement against specific racial or religious groups may violate equal protection.
• Status crimes: Robinson remains good law. A law expressly criminalizing "being homeless" would violate the Eighth Amendment under Grants Pass's own analysis.
• Proportionality: Extreme enforcement — high fines for a first violation, substantial jail time for minor infractions — could raise Eighth Amendment concerns under the excessive fines clause or proportionality analysis separate from the status/conduct question.

Implications for Cities and Homelessness Policy

Grants Pass removed the most significant legal barrier to anti-camping enforcement in the Ninth Circuit, where much of the country's most acute homelessness crisis exists (California, Oregon, Washington). Cities in the Ninth Circuit had either avoided enforcement or faced litigation risk under Martin; after Grants Pass, they could enforce anti-camping ordinances more aggressively.

But Grants Pass is not a solution to homelessness — it is a clarification of constitutional limits. Advocates noted that removing the Eighth Amendment barrier does not create housing, build shelter capacity, address mental health, or solve the economic conditions producing homelessness. Cities that pursue aggressive enforcement without investing in shelter and services may reduce visible encampments while displacing people to neighboring jurisdictions or pushing them into more hidden and dangerous situations.

The decision has accelerated debates in state legislatures about whether states will impose statutory constraints on anti-camping enforcement that the federal Constitution now permits but does not require. California's own constitutional provisions and state law may impose limits on city enforcement that Grants Pass does not.

How It Affects You

If you are a person experiencing homelessness: Grants Pass means that cities may now enforce anti-camping ordinances against you even if no shelter is available. Before the decision, in Ninth Circuit states (California, Oregon, Washington, Nevada, Arizona, Idaho, Montana, Alaska, Hawaii), courts had blocked such enforcement when shelters were full. After Grants Pass, cities have broader legal authority to issue citations, fines, and in some cases arrests for camping in public spaces. Your constitutional protections remain in other areas: cities cannot seize and discard your belongings without notice and opportunity to retrieve them (property rights / due process), enforcement cannot be targeted at you based on race or religion (equal protection), and conditions in jail or detention must meet Eighth Amendment standards if you are incarcerated. Know your rights regarding property seizure during sweeps — these claims survived Grants Pass.

If you are a city official or municipal attorney: Grants Pass gives you broader authority to enforce anti-camping ordinances and pursue encampment clearances without the shelter-capacity requirement the Ninth Circuit had imposed. But legal exposure from other constitutional claims remains. Property seizure must comply with due process — cities that destroy encampment belongings without adequate notice and retrieval opportunities face Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment claims that Grants Pass did not address. Enforcement patterns can create equal protection claims if they appear to target specific populations. Document the non-discriminatory basis for enforcement decisions. Work with service providers to connect individuals with available resources during enforcement — not as a constitutional requirement, but as effective policy and political management.

If you are a homelessness service provider or advocacy organization: Grants Pass requires a strategic pivot. The Eighth Amendment litigation strategy that produced Martin v. City of Boise is no longer viable for anti-camping ordinances. Future constitutional challenges must focus on other legal theories: property seizure without due process, disparate enforcement claims, First Amendment challenges to ordinances that prohibit gathering or religious services in public spaces, and state constitutional claims. Advocacy should focus on state legislatures and city councils — state law can impose shelter-before-enforcement requirements that the federal Constitution now permits but does not require. California, Oregon, and Washington have active debates on these state-law constraints post-Grants Pass.

If you are a constitutional law practitioner: Grants Pass is a significant Eighth Amendment ruling that resolves the circuit split on the status/conduct line in the homelessness context. The practical holding is that generally applicable conduct regulations do not become status crimes merely because the regulated population disproportionately includes people with a particular characteristic. The decision's logic potentially extends beyond homelessness to other regulatory contexts where advocates argue that generally applicable laws effectively punish unavoidable conduct. The dissent (Sotomayor, Kagan, Jackson) argued powerfully that sleeping is unavoidable for someone without shelter, making the conduct/status distinction insufficient — this dissent frames future challenges to the decision's reasoning and sets up possible narrowing in specific contexts (e.g., criminalization of sleeping that extends beyond public spaces).

State Variations

Grants Pass resolved the federal constitutional floor. States retain authority to provide greater protection under state constitutional provisions or by statute:

California: California's Constitution includes its own dignity clause and civil rights protections. State legislators and advocates have proposed legislation requiring counties and cities to demonstrate adequate shelter availability before enforcing anti-camping ordinances — replicating the Martin rule by statute. Governor Newsom issued executive orders directing encampment clearances, while some cities have adopted less aggressive approaches. California's litigation will increasingly focus on state constitutional claims and state law, not the federal Eighth Amendment.

Oregon: Oregon voters passed Measure 110 in 2020, decriminalizing small amounts of drugs, and then partially reversed it in 2024; state law on public order enforcement continues to evolve. Oregon cities gained enforcement authority under Grants Pass, but state law may constrain how they use it.

Washington: Washington cities face their own state constitutional analysis. Washington's Constitution has been interpreted broadly in civil liberties contexts, and state courts may apply state constitutional provisions more protectively than the federal floor after Grants Pass.

States with limited homelessness: In states outside the Ninth Circuit (the Midwest, South, Northeast), Grants Pass changes little — those circuits had already upheld anti-camping enforcement without the Martin shelter-capacity requirement. State approaches vary widely, from robust shelter systems (New York City's right-to-shelter consent decree) to minimal services (many rural states).

Pending Legislation

• State shelter-before-enforcement bills: Multiple state legislatures in California, Oregon, and Washington have considered legislation requiring that jurisdictions demonstrate available shelter before enforcing anti-camping ordinances — a statutory version of the Martin rule Grants Pass held is not constitutionally required
• Federal homelessness legislation: No federal legislation directly addressing the constitutional parameters of anti-camping enforcement has been enacted; the McKinney-Vento Act's policy goals remain unchanged; administration priorities on homelessness have shifted between administrations
• Local ordinances: Following Grants Pass, cities across the Ninth Circuit adopted or strengthened anti-camping ordinances; local ordinance litigation shifted to other constitutional theories (property seizure, equal protection, First Amendment)

Recent Developments

• 2019 — Martin v. City of Boise (9th Cir.): Ninth Circuit held Eighth Amendment bars enforcement of anti-camping ordinances against homeless individuals lacking adequate shelter access; triggered widespread enforcement litigation and injunctions against Western cities' encampment clearances
• 2024 — City of Grants Pass v. Johnson, 603 U.S. 200 (June 28, 2024): Supreme Court 6-3 reversed Ninth Circuit; anti-camping ordinances are regulations of conduct, not status crimes; Eighth Amendment does not impose shelter-capacity requirements on enforcement; Justice Sotomayor dissented, warning the decision permits criminalization of the basic act of sleeping for people without alternatives
• 2024 — California encampment clearances: Following Grants Pass, Governor Newsom directed state agencies to clear encampments on state-owned property; cities across California accelerated clearances, shifting litigation to property seizure and due process claims
• 2024–2025 — Post-Grants Pass litigation: Courts addressing property seizure claims, equal protection challenges, and state constitutional arguments in Ninth Circuit jurisdictions; the legal battleground shifted from Eighth Amendment to other constitutional theories